City Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 5 p.m.

We have a quorum. Do you want it to start?

Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order presented chapter five by one title five of the Texas government code.

The Texas Open Meetings Act notice is headed by given at the Charter Review Committee at the city of Brownsville, Texas, in accordance with Article 5, Section 12 of the Charter of State City. We'll convene a regular meeting on Monday, June 1st, 2026 at 5 p.m. in the commission chambers.

Next, we have Rocco. Tremendous.

Rokoff, Daniel Salinas, Ben Pena. But Ben, you know, you can ask me, you know, Lee Sandoz, as an aristocrat. Um, just to let you know, um, the, um, I don't think now, which it was in the other board member just, uh, provide us a resignation letter email. Um, so the appointment will be on this upcoming meeting tomorrow.

Next we have public comment period. Um, the office did not receive any public comments.

I don't spread individual consideration. Item number one, consideration and action to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2026 meeting.

I have a question from Commissioner, from, gosh, wait, from Mendez. Yeah, and a second from Cardenas. Can I, what are y'all's titles? Sorry. Committee member. Sorry.

Committee member.

Okay, committee member, yes, thank you. Committee member Mendez and then a second from committee member Cardenas.

All those in favor aye aye any opposed motion carries item number two consideration in action to recommend to the city commission each other amend amended election either for November twenty twenty six or may twenty twenty seven election.

There we go okay hi good afternoon everyone um. So just as a little reminder, you know, we are here for either the November 2026 election or the May 2027 election. As we kind of went over one of the last meetings very quickly, there are certain deadlines that the commission needs to adhere to when ordering the election. So specifically for the November 2020 election, the deadline for the commission to order that election is August 17th. For the May 2027 election, the deadline would be Friday, February 12th, 2027. So there's a little bit more details in regard to those specific deadlines. Because the commission needs to pass an ordinance in order to order the election. And there needs to be two readings for the ordinance to be passed. So in looking at... The dates, if we are going to do the November 3rd election, just a little bit of a background here. We had our first meeting on April 1st. We had the second meeting May 11th. We have today's meeting June 1st. We need to have at least two more meetings to be in compliance with the charge that the commission passed to create this committee. Those meetings actually do need to be held in a different location. According to the charge, there needed to be some at City Hall and some at another location within the city in order to give everybody from the public access to be able to attend these meetings. So the last two meetings, if we are going to, we could have more meetings than that. But in order to comply with the charge, we need to have at least two more meetings. and those would need to be somewhere else. So a place that we could have them at is the convention center. If we are gonna comply with the November 3rd date to have the election at that time, the July 7th regular city commission meeting is when this committee should be able to present those recommendations. in order to give sufficient time. So, in other words, if you all present at the July 7th regular commission meeting, that would give us time and the commission time, essentially, to take into consideration those recommendations, decide if they want to add, change, edit, you know, whatever it is that they're going to do. That would give some time in order to finalize the wording of what those charter amendments are actually going to look like, because that wording is what needs to be in the ordinance. So, and we would also need to have translations done for that particular, you know, for the, for the wording of the charter amendments. So that puts us at. july 21st which is the next regular city commission meeting that would be where we have the first ordinance reading the public hearing um with the final wording of what the charter amendments are going to look like and what the commission is actually going to order um then august 4th is the next regular city commission meeting which would be the second reading that would be enough time to comply with the august 17th 2026 statutory deadline so with all that being said it's a little bit of a time crunch um i mean doable but i just wanted to give you all the facts in order for us to comply with the timeline so and again it doesn't oh it kind of turned off so in order to um you know give enough time be in compliance with the two additional meetings that this commission, this committee, I'm sorry, would need to have to be in compliance with your all's creation and all that. We would need to have two more meetings between now and I believe, I don't have, let me see, I have it here in front of me because I printed the PowerPoint just in case this ever happens. So anyway, by July 7th, that's the next regular commission meeting and that would be, the time to present your all's recommendations to them. That's still even cutting it a little close because they may not decide at that one meeting. They may want to have another meeting. They may want to have another public hearing, you know, depending on what they want to do. But that's just taking into consideration the dates of the regular city commission meetings that we already have scheduled.

Question.

Yes.

Do we have an opportunity perhaps to implement the ordinance, not the ordinance, the charter between now and November, but have it come effective in November 2027? In other words, it's either a short period or a long period between the next election, right?

Right, because if we don't do it for the November election, we would do it in the May election. Okay, so that would give this committee more time. We wouldn't have to present to the commission until I would say approximately December of this year, 2026, to have all the wording finalized, the first reading and the second reading to be in compliance with that February 2027 deadline. to make the May 2027 election. Does that make sense? I know it's like a lot, but we would have that time. But to answer your question, it's a statutory deadline. I mean, those are hard deadlines. And we have our deadlines and our rules of having to pass the two ordinances and all that. And then there's certain requirements of what needs to be in the ordinances. So in order to comply with all that and have enough time, like i said we need to have those two readings to meet those statutory deadlines but the may i didn't i didn't do a whole like table so for the mail i'm sorry so the issue here is if we do decide to go with a november election the target would be to hit november 2026 as the next november election that we would have elections right i'm sorry i don't i'm not quite following so we're

We're sitting here in June 2026, right? If we change the charter and get it approved by the July meeting, I'm sorry, the August 4th regular commission meeting, then the next election would be November 2026, right? Correct. A few months, right? Correct. That's a very tight timeline. Not to mention that I would imagine that a lot of the people that are thinking about running between now and then, right, may not have been ready to either declare their candidacy or the current commissioners that are already in place, prepare enough time to campaign between now and November is a very short time period. And so my question is, if we do decide to change it to the November timeframe, is there an opportunity to make that effective, the first November election being in November 2027, meaning you'd still have the May 2027 or forego the May 2027 election and go to the November 2027 election.

Correct. I mean, if you all, I believe the intent was to have these charter amendments presented at the next, at an upcoming election. um but i mean you all can certainly have your recommendation be that these charter amendments not go to election until november 2027 instead of the may 2027 that that's certainly an option so i do want to clarify i think what he was asking is the assumption was to change the city held election it still be in may but the proposed

Election for the charter, what you all are doing, the two consideration is the November 3rd election, which is coming up this year.

So on the charter, we're considering whether to change it from May to November, right? If we don't do anything, we leave it in May. Correct. If we agree to leave it in May, we just codify the charter for it to be a May election, right?

We would pass the ordinance for it to be presented in the May election, yes.

so so my point is regardless of when this charter committee makes a recommendation to the city commission to be approved on august 4th right if we go with may or november i guess what i'm saying is november is a really short time period between yeah but it has to be on the ballot then and then also too can i add that even for the november of course you know whichever one but also be mindful that when it's a november election our ballot

you know, proposal is going to be towards the end of the proposition. So you're looking at federal, you're looking at state, you're looking at local, which is us and any other opposition. So it could be a voter fatigue by the time it gets to the charter. So be mindful of that too when November elections are held as well.

What is the current deadline for declaration of candidacy application?

uh for for may election in terms of days yeah for may of 2027 typically it starts the second week of january through the middle of february it's the time the time frame typically the second week of february of 2027 is the following period for the may 2027. we're trying to you're confusing me so i don't know what you're asking but my understanding is

They're asking us to consider that if we take too long, that the commission can't discuss it and put it on the ballot in November. And if we want them to have that opportunity, because they're going to decide where they put it on the ballot, we would need to be done by July 7th. That's what they're saying. What are you asking?

Technically, it would have to be before July 7th, because that's the date of the meeting, and the agenda has to be posted so many days before.

All I'm saying is that it's fast.

And then there's a holiday affected for the July 7th, because it's 4th of July holiday, so we have to post June 30th.

For the July.

That's the deadline. So working two to three weeks ahead of time for us to have the language.

So that's my question in its fundamental form. If we do change to a November election, is there an opportunity to change that effective in 2027?

I think you're adding, sorry, I think you're adding, we're not talking about when elections are going to be. This is just when we would put our propositions on the ballot for people to vote on. With which election?

Yeah, it doesn't mean a city commission election date.

It's going to change the date.

Okay.

It changes your voting pool, as you said. Like more people vote in the federal ones.

Well, and so because it's going to be very full and lengthy, I would propose that if we went for November, we just go in with one or two amendments at best. Because, as you said, it makes it very short window of time to campaign and inform people, hey, these are the effects of the language we're proposing.

But if we do that, then they can't do it again for two more years, right? Correct. If the city commission decides to put two of them, then the other ones have to hold on.

If you want it to be for a federal, I mean, it depends, because we would be able to do this for the May 2027 election. But you can't amend the charter, like if it passes. Two years, correct.

Two years. If it failed, they could put it again in November, right? Or no, in May.

It would have to be two years. No, I think you can only propose ballot amendments every two years. Correct. Whether it passes or not. Correct.

Now, besides the fact that the ballot is going to have

ton of items on it possibly in november what are the other pluses and minuses holding it in november versus may you have a better turnout in november in november but like like um the city secretary said people people go in and vote and they're like oh i'm just looking for my friend or so and so that i know and and they might they'd be like if it's on the third page it's like oh i don't

And then I did do some history pull-in on the charter when the city has done it in the last 10 years. And the last 10 years have been held in May. So May 2015, it was a regular and a special for the charter. May 21 was a regular and a special for the charter election. May 23 was a regular and for the special. And then in May... 24? No. Yeah, 24 as well was the charter election. And then I have the breakdown on cost as well.

Let me ask, if it was a May election, would it be at the same time as the municipal election? Okay. So it wouldn't cost the city any more money to put on the ballot. It'd be cheaper for the commission to do it. But I don't know how the commission feels as far as whether or not there's a preference on November or May. Do you know? No. Okay. Because I think we can do it if we want to. We can get it done to have it for November. I'm assuming the City Commission is going to have some special meetings for the budget anyway, right?

Yeah, we have a special workshop coming up this month.

Okay. Because when is the budget going to be approved?

Depending on the turnaround from this body, that would be a turnaround for legal to get in front of the preparation for November. any other further discussions that is needed. But as far as cost, it also depends on the number of entities that are participating in the election and also costs have risen. So when it was done in 2015, we spent almost $250,000. In May 2023, we spent over 200 and so thousand dollars. So it just depends on the amount that's on the ballot, the supplies, and the entities that are participating in the election. So there's other factors and variables when it comes to cost.

So would it be less expensive for the city to get on the November ballot?

In November? Oh, I'm not. Yeah. So you got to look at the, if you do in November, if there's more participation from entities, but then the other side is the impact that it's going to affect on the voter, like voter fatigue by the time you look at all the propositions. So really the cost, it just depends on, you know, to supply the cost and the demand.

Yeah, but you're going to have an election in May anyway. So you're going to incur costs in May no matter what. So if you do it in November, that's an additional cost over and above what you would have done in May anyway.

Yeah. And if we do this current, well, the upcoming current fiscal year, then we'll have to really good with the city manager's office and finance on budgeting because if we do november that's going to be an x amount of cost in one current fiscal year for the november 2026 and then may so it may be the double cost as well because we'll be having to we'll have a special for the november in the same fiscal year and turn around doing another may contract so we'll have two contracts to really consider on different costs so just be mindful of that as well on budget impact.

Hopefully that answers the question. There's more cons to pros if you put it on the November ballot.

Right. Yeah, just a matter of how long do we need because we could be done. I don't anticipate we're going to need that many more meetings. I mean, we have two after this. Our work will probably be done in two meetings, I would think. If anything, maybe one additional one after that and we'll be done. So we don't have to keep hanging out and having meetings until February. Either way.

You need to.

Do you want to go for November?

I just think our work's going to be done and then we just leave it up to the city commission as far as when they want to do it.

That's what I think is the best. Like we don't make the, unless it's part of our charge to decide when, but I kind of don't get the sense that that's up to us to decide. So I think if we just get it done, they can decide. Like if we present it in time for the city commission to make that decision is what I mean. Well, it can go on the agenda for the second June meeting. Yeah.

Right. But so have we gone through all the possibilities of what should be proposed as an amendment?

Yes, we presented all of the ones that were in the charge to you all already. And we don't have any additional, as of today, there are no additional ones that have been presented for your all's consideration that I'm aware of. But we have a couple that we have not come to a recommendation. Correct. The three that are on the agenda for today, which is the compensation, disciplinary provisions, and the campaign finance matter, those are the three that are on the agenda for today. that you all can discuss today um and if you need more discussion we have two other meetings that we need to have uh so it would just be a matter of if you do want to go forward with the november uh election then we would just need to get dates for the next two meetings so that we have sufficient time to present the recommendations of this committee to the commission by the july 7th meeting but i guess i should be a little bit really needs to be before that june 30th she was saying right right in the packet posted packet review and yes june 30th you said june 30th is the deadline for us to post to be in compliance okay so as long as we have it by i would say june 29th I mean, that's cutting it very close.

But is the city going to have any additional meetings in July or August for the budget?

Because if they are, then we have in June. Yeah. June 23rd is the first one just for the special workshop.

Okay.

And that's for the public input. Okay. Okay.

mean yeah so i mean to be i mean to be fair those this could be on another agenda if there is another special meeting i was going off of the regular commission meetings that are scheduled but if there is another special meeting that's scheduled um it could be on one of those meetings as well if the commission would like to put it on one of those and we need to have two public hearings I believe there technically only needs to be one, which would be the first reading slash public hearing.

But of our meetings, we have to have two more? I'm sorry, a different location, sorry.

Correct. This committee needs to have at least two more meetings, and we include the public hearing within our meetings. Like today is considered a public hearing on the three that we're going to discuss, and we need to have two more.

And then that would be, so if we get those done, as long as they're before the 30th, so that it can be placed on the agenda, if we're done, then we'd be done and it doesn't have to be. Okay. So we need to have two meetings. So we would just need to have two more meetings within that in June.

Correct. And June is a little tight, but, um, I was waiting to get the dates of availability for the convention center. and they're working on it right now. They haven't sent it to me yet. I'm hoping to get it before the end of us adjourning today.

We could do it at the main branch public library.

We could do that, yeah. It doesn't have to be at the convention center. I just don't know if Ms. We might even get a walk-in traffic at the library, whereas at the event center, no.

True.

I had just put convention center because that's what we had discussed at one of the other meetings, but it certainly can be at a different location.

We can do it over a million to accommodate Vito. Yes.

I don't know if, Ms. Meyer, you have dates of availability for other locations?

Not for other locations. We can connect with the venue or the staff. Maybe E-Bridge, would that be one? I know parking is an issue. But either the public library will be good since there's already attraction and patreons already come in that'll be a good avenue to outreach correct that's a great suggestion yes and then we can coordinate with staffing and looking at the the rooms that they have and that's a good way to educate on voting this is where you come to vote as well so then it could just be a matter of um availability availability and then on when and then availability of uh of you all

within June to get those meetings?

We would have to have the two meetings before July. Before June 30th. It was June 29th to be safe. For the July 7th meeting. But then the others would be three days, 72 hours. So that's the postings.

So it's due. The items are due for the agenda posting is June 23rd into the system.

So earlier. But we could do it later. We could do it, I mean, at the very end of, I mean, we could do that.

We can start working on and getting them.

Correct. Yes.

Just be like, we're putting it on. And if we're not ready.

Correct, because I mean, the wording doesn't have to be specific for that for you all to give the recommendations. The wording needs to be specific for the ordinance reading. So I'm not too worried about language when you all are giving your recommendations. I mean, that's it's still going to be up to the commission on how they're going to want to move forward with those recommendations. So So really, I mean, I think we would be okay by June, you know, to have an idea by, to have the meeting, our meetings done by June 30th.

The problem, where's my, problem is that our city attorney's office is unavailable on certain days in June.

However, I'm thinking as long as we give sufficient notice to the public in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, we could technically have two meetings in one week. You know, there's no requirement that the meetings need to be certain days apart or weeks apart or months apart or anything like that. So even if you want to have a meeting on two consecutive days, technically you can do that. We just need to make sure that we have given the sufficient notice to the public. And it's a little bit difficult to have meetings back to back like that when we don't know what's going to happen at the meeting, at one meeting, and then the next day there's already another meeting scheduled, but you're not going to be able to discuss maybe something that came up in the meeting the day before. That makes sense because it wasn't on the agenda. So it's a better practice to have them scheduled within enough time to be able to post with sufficient notice so that you can include in that next meeting whatever might come up in that previous meeting. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly. But our city attorneys are not available on, I have June 22nd through 26th. And then June 29th through July 3rd. And then I have the 17th as unavailable, but I don't know why.

Let me see. Oh, I have as myself as being unavailable because I have another meeting that day, but Will can be available on the 17th, I'm sure. So I would say just...

The 22nd through the 26th, the city attorney's office is not available. And then technically the 29th and the 30th.

So those last two weeks. Which is not... So then I guess what we could do, if you all want to do the November... We would have to, Ms. Meyer, would we have to post tomorrow?

If we post it tomorrow, our next meeting could be on Monday the 8th.

And then we could have the next meeting that following Monday the 15th. assuming availability works and all that.

Would that work, Ms. Meyer?

Oh, yes.

Yeah.

Yeah. Depending on the availability of with the facility at the at the main branch. Yes.

So posting tomorrow for the 8th. Up to you all. Those are just options.

Shall we take a poll as to who prefers November versus May? Who prefers November?

Should we have a motion? Make a motion?

No, I'm just taking an informal poll. Oh, okay. Like who prefers to go for November? versus may of next year okay who considers november is that what the question was yes okay just informally because if if the majority goes for me then all of this is superfluous that's again though that's us what our preference is as opposed to the commission is going to make the ultimate decision but i think we're the ones who make the recommendation to the commission and they can change it then they would have to basically decide. So then we should know that by the second June meeting, correct? As I think, because boy, that puts a lot of balls in motion.

I just think it's a lot to handle between now and... What's going to happen is

We present to them, like, say, on the compensation one, if we come up with a figure, they can change it. They can go from, like, the standing is $40.20, I believe, or $40.25? Correct. Yeah, so let's say that we're just presenting it now, and we send it with $40.25. Once it gets to the commission, you can change the amount in order to get it on election day. like whatever we come up with and amend the commission has the chance to reword it themselves this is a presentation we're presenting to them and if for some reason one of them doesn't like it and wants to amend it at the commission meeting to say always the 25 i'd rather have 35 and let's give the mayor 60. and then they would all vote on it to what it's going to read on the ballot

Yeah, like legal is not going to draft it until the commission decides.

Correct. The way it is, we can just send it back to them as is, and then they can change it themselves.

I would move to table that as a decision and just go forward with discussing the final three. I mean, it makes no difference. You're not going to the commission tomorrow and saying they said yes or no.

That's actually a good idea because we can actually consider that at the end of this meeting, too, based on what sort of progress we make.

Yeah, sure. Correct. We still just need to discuss everything anyway. We can't not discuss it just because we decided or decided.

Okay, so I've got a first from committee member Elizondo and a second from Peña to table number two for individual consideration after public hearings.

Oh, sorry. All those in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries. Public hearings.

Presentation by City Attorney's Office with a discussion and amendments recommended by City Commission, including there are eight City of Brownsville City Chair Article 5, Section 13 Compensation.

There we go.

Okay, so in picking up from last meeting, we have the same slides as we had presented to you all at that meeting, giving the different cities' populations and what they pay out to their mayor and their council and the type of structure that they use. Those are just some other cities. And then the recommendations that we had presented are here. I know that some of the things that you all had discussed last time was possibly including a COLA increase, possibly making it contingent on budget availability and COLA going to the employees first. Also, you all took into consideration some of the benefits that the commissioners already received. So essentially, I don't know if you have any additional questions regarding the compensation recommendation that we have made to you all, but it's kind of up to you guys.

From my understanding, the compensation would occur like every two years, correct?

I'm sorry.

Once we... The...

they're recommending that this be revisited every two years on the compensation i believe well the recommendation or it's not necessarily the recommendation but the proposition is that the compensation that's currently on the charter if you all recommend it to be changed it can stay as is and right now the way it is is forty thousand dollars for the mayor and twenty five for the city commissioners and it would just stay that way and if um You all have the recommendation to change it. The changes could be that you change those specific amounts to where you recommend, hey, city commission, we recommend that the mayor gets a $70,000 salary and the commissioners get a $50,000 salary or whatever amount that you all would want to recommend. That's an option, putting in the actual amount. That would stay that way if, depending on however the commission decides to put it on the ballot, it would go on the ballot, it would go to the election, the voters would say either they are for that change or they're against that change. Depending on when it comes of it, if they're for it, then it would change to be whatever amount the commission decides. And the only way to change it again would be through another process like this, through another charter amendment process. So that's kind of the way the process and procedure would go. The other recommendation would be to change the wording and adding, like we have here on recommendation number two, it's a little bit more wording, adding, you know, the CPI language. If you all, like I said, wanted to include the COLA thing, the budget thing, all kinds of things like that, you all can get creative in what you would like to recommend to the commission. It doesn't have to be this way. This is simply just a recommendation.

But that's essentially where we're at. Can you show us the other numbers? Yes. I don't know why my clicker's not working. Okay, there we go.

Okay, there we go.

Yeah, the last meeting I had pointed out that we're the 10th largest city on the list, but our salary compensation is 7th highest, so we're pretty good already, but I understand if, I mean, ultimately it's going to be up to the voters to do whatever it is they want to do. I think 60-40 is fair. If we were to consider an increase with a COLA language, I think that makes sense to me, but that's just my thoughts.

I like that.

And they could be two separate

things right like one is to increase it and one is to add the cola i'm sorry what was that like it could be two items on the ballot like one would be the increase and then the other would be the cola so it doesn't have to go together i believe will had mentioned that at the last meeting where it could we could separate it out into two separate propositions where one would be the actual numerical change with like you all are proposing the 60 40 And then another one where it has maybe that COLA language in it. And so that way there's essentially, you know, two opportunities for the voters to decide one or the other. They could say no to both or they could... I don't know how it would... I guess it would be... It could be a little challenging if they say yes to both. But I guess that could be... I mean, that could be something that Commission could kind of weigh in on also with how the wording maybe could be presented as far as you all giving the recommendation that you kind of would like to see a COLA language in there.

I shouldn't have thrown that wrench in. Let's just leave it as trace recommendation. But I do think, I just want to say that even though we're the seventh highest, I mean, there's smaller cities that have more, there's bigger cities that have less, and I think I agree with With tray that it should go up and I like the cola part because it keeps it kind of like a living breathing document where it keeps going up instead of having to come back all the time because you don't want to get behind. That's the problem. Right? Like these cities that do 10 dollars a day. That's crazy. But so you don't want to have to go back to the voters every time you want an increase. I think a cola is a good. Recommendation, and I think that that's a good recommendation as is and let them let the commission decide how to word it or what specifically to do. But. If we have a consensus on kind of the idea, I think that's something that we're more likely to reach a consensus on than an actual number and an actual, like, this is it, take it or leave it.

The problem that I have with the COLA is that it'll, the frequency of when you adjust the salaries, I mean, it's in perpetuity, right? So you're compounding on top of that every year, and so it could get away from this, and then ultimately it kind of leaves it out of the voters, right? And so I think what probably makes most sense is to adjust it to whatever we wanted, whether it's a 60-40 or whatever the split is. But ultimately, any future changes, I think, needs to be sent back to the voters.

What's the typical? I know because of inflation, it's been different the last few years. But over, let's say, the course of the last 20 years, more or less, do you have an idea of what about 3% per year? Yeah. Three to five. The reason I kind of thought a COLA makes sense is only so that it doesn't keep coming back. But, I mean, the commission can bring it back as often as they want if they so choose. And the voters can knock it down if they so choose, right? I just thought it was a mechanism that would hopefully in practice prevent or just encourage it to not keep coming back. Because I think you're only going to get so many bites at the apple.

So if in addition to the COLA happens, that's pretty much it. There's no revisitation down the road for compensation. Is that what we're saying?

Not necessarily. No, because the charter still lets you always go back every two years.

So if you have a COLA adjustment, it's automatic. I mean, it's in the charter that you're going to go up whatever rate we determine whether it's inflation rate or US Treasury rate, whatever, 3% to 5% every year. So what happens is every year or every other year, depending on what frequency we determine, is you're going to keep stacking and it's going to keep growing and growing. Now you've got to monitor what those rates are going to be and what the salaries are going to be. So you're going to have constant changes within the salaries. And so you won't have the possibility of the voters ever getting a say on whether the commission gets an increase or not.

But then you think it would get out of control though? It would take quite a few years and then is it annual or is it every two years that the COLA increase? It's every year. Sure.

Generally, most COLA adjustments are once every year.

Yeah. Yeah, I just did a calculation.

It means now that principal over 3% of the tenure that goes from 60 to 80,610 years. If it's 73%, assuming 3%. Yeah. Right. That's kind of like an idea.

Yeah, in perpetuity. Or until the commission decides to change it again. Have a charter review.

What if we cap it for 10 years and then force it to be revisited by the voters? That would

sunset sorry that's the appropriate word but even like that whatever we come up with it it'll change in the commission like say we put an amendment to say that it can only be really revisited every 10 years when it gets to the commission y'all can say yeah i'll take that right now and just leave it the way it is so it's one of those where no matter what we can come up with there's a possibility that it'll change we need to make a recommendation yeah that we agreed on even even at the next election cycle when you have a brand new commission or the mix right so and then with new commissioners coming in and mayors they might you know in the next election they say put the charter review together and let's bring this back to change it again and if you want to turn on your microphone oh sorry sorry yeah what happens is with the commission and mayors, if they get voted back in or a new group of people come in, they can put it on the charter to say, well, now we want a higher compensation. So it could change at every election.

What if we just go higher and then don't recommend the COLA and then it's good for a little bit longer? Because it's kind of like averaging it out. What do you want it to get to? And if you increase too little, It stays for too long. Or we just worry about now and let other things go to the voters, like Ben said.

Maybe we're just overthinking. The good thing about it, if a new commission mix decides to have a charter review, they'd have to go up for election again. So the voters would have to approve that charter amendment anyways. I think that ultimately, I think it's best to have the citizens vote on that.

So. It's just up to us to put the wording as, well, let's just leave it at that and then change the amounts and then let the commission figure it out. Because if it were up to me, I would put an amendment of, if the commission's getting an increase, then our hourly city employees should get an increase. That way when it... The physical... Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we could, but it's like, I could add that amendment to it and then at the commissioners meeting. The meeting, it can be taken off.

So, we're in agreement, it should go up. Right. Everybody thinking that, I mean, at least go up.

I'm good with a 6040.

And really don't have to change 60 for the mirror and then 40 for the commissioners. Correct.

I feel guilty because I don't think the employees' salaries have gone up that much for years.

Exactly.

So that, I think, is an injustice.

Yeah, and that I would want to put the amendment that, you know, if this is going to be visited this year, our hourly should get an increase also. If the commission's getting an increase, then our hourly workers with the city should get an increase also.

Yeah, but that's outside of our scope.

So is that 60-40 plus the COLA or just 60-40 that we're considering? I like it without the COLA myself. And if there's any future, you know, desire to change it, then it goes up before the election. Let the citizens decide. So.

Is that a motion, Ben? It's a motion to... Fames the mayor's salary to $60,000 and the commissioners to $40,000.

Sorry. It's a public hearing. Sorry. It's a public hearing. Oh, yeah.

Sorry. That's right. This is a public hearing. Anyone here who would like to speak to this? And I'm looking at you, Paul, because you're the only one. Okay. So no one's here to speak. Anyone? I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion to close public hearing. Second.

I've got a first from... Mr. Pena, and a second from Ms. Adesondo. All those in favor?

Aye.

Public hearing is closed.

Now, Mr. Pena, would you like to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion to increase the mayor's salary to $60,000 and the commissioner's salary to $40,000 without any COLA adjustments thereafter.

Got a first from Mr. Pena. Any seconds?

Second.

A second from Mr. Mendez. Do you want to discuss? Sure. you want to discuss it yeah oh okay all those in favor all right any opposed motion carries that is public hearing one a letter b campaign finance okay so just going back these are the same slides that had been presented at the last meeting um

essentially showing what the current contributions are for Brownsville and some other neighboring cities. And this is kind of what the general estimations have been for the past several years. And then these are currently what the campaign limits are in the ordinance. Because if you all remember, Will talked about how we already do have a campaign finance ordinance that has already been amended that we feel really complies with the current case law that has been kind of changed recently due to some litigation that has taken place. And so we do have the current ordinance that specifies what the campaign limits are. So essentially what the question is, Can you change the slide, please? It's not, my clicker is not working. And then the next one, please. So essentially what the recommendations are would be to one, if you even want to put this on in the charter, if you want to recommend that campaign finance be on the charter. And like I said, we have it as an ordinance now. The question is, do you want to keep it that way? or add it to the charter. If you want to add it to the charter, then you have two options. One, do you just keep it simple? And we could go with this recommendation of, like I stated in recommendation number two, where it says the city commission shall provide by ordinance campaign finance restrictions that comply with federal and state law. That keeps it to where the city is now required to have an ordinance. that is in compliance with federal and state law, but the charter doesn't specify specifically what that looks like, and it could be amended as needed via ordinance, or you could even put in what is actually in the ordinance right now, specifically in the charter. So it's kind of those two questions that you need to ask. One, do you want to leave it the way it is, keep it by ordinance, not recommend any changes to the charter? Two, if you do want to make that change to the charter, what does that look like?

There's currently no limit in the charter at all, like no reference to it at all.

I don't believe so. Right now there's no language regarding campaign finance. What do you recommend? I mean, I think that having something in the charter – that just keeps it to where there is a requirement that there be an ordinance, a requirement that needs to be followed is a good starting point. I mean, the way we have it right now, we have the ordinance. Yeah, and if you have it specifically codified, like let's just say we put in the actual ordinance, everything in the ordinance in the charter, then we're stuck. with what that says, and then it has to be changed again via election. And that makes it a little bit stringent. And some of this campaign finance stuff, I mean, it gets challenged and it changes. And I mean, we could put in the charter, like we put as required with federal and state law, But the fact that it would have to be changed and there would have to be a charter election to change it if that ordinance is so specific that later turns out to be not in compliance with the law, that's something to consider as well. So there's no right or wrong answer. It just depends on what the preference is, on how to go about it.

From a legal standpoint, if you get challenged on say the verbiage that's in the charter right um then it has no no weight right correct kind of similar to what you have now anyways because you don't have mentioned so what what is the benefit of having it in the charter as opposed to just having an ordinance well i think the concern is that there's always

you know, the chance that a new commission could come in and do away with the campaign finance ordinance. If it's not in the charter at all right now that there is a campaign finance ordinance that essentially is required, then, you know, in 20 years, 30 years, there could be a commission that decides, you know what, we don't want to have the campaign finance, we want to do away with it, the ordinance, and do away with it. If you have language in the charter that says that you need to have some campaign finance restrictions that comply with federal and state law, then the city is required to have something in the books as an ordinance that needs to be followed. So that's essentially what it is. It's just kind of, you know, just putting setting in stone what could happen in the future. With what a new commission could decide to change or amend or get rid of or whatever they choose to do.

So that's a case of an option. Recommendation two is probably the best one, right?

I mean, it's up to you all.

Recommendation two is more flexible because if you do one, then you codify it officially. And the only way you can change it is by going back to the chart. You're kind of stuck. And if there's a legal challenge, then you're going to have some problems probably as well. If you do two, then the only requirement is that you be in compliance with state and federal law. So it gives you some more flexibility if the commission wants to change it at some point in the future. And right now, I don't think state or federal law requires anything at this point.

That's what I was going to ask, yeah.

I don't think it requires anything, but it tells you what you can't restrict based on case law, right?

That you cannot restrict?

Yeah, in other words, there's no state or federal law that requires you to have

finance ordinance campaign finance correct right the only law that exists is case law that's been created by mccallan because they were too restrictive correct okay so when you say state and federal law it's the case law about being too restrictive not about there's just general limits there's no general limits if you're gonna you don't have to have one but if you have one you need to be in compliance with first amendment rights i think number two is best I like the idea of having limits. And if the commission wants to say the limit is a million dollars, well, force the voters, or I guess you have to put that in an ordinance that the voters can see, right? If something didn't get out of hand. So it kind of puts it on the commission if they choose to make really loose limits that affects the finances or the way elections are handled here. So I think two allows flexibility while keeping the commission accountable. Like you have to decide it if you're going to do it, you know?

So right now there's no federal state law with respect to limits on campaign. So there's nothing. They're not required. You don't have to have anything.

It essentially needs to be in compliance with your First Amendment rights, I believe is what has been the, you know.

So federal state law has no limits.

Correct.

In other words.

I'm not 100% sure on that. I'd have to check.

it seems like it's on too restrictive like when she says first amendment rights it's that it could get challenged if it's too too low of an amount like then you can't voice your support for who you want yeah but there's no the other way the problem is never that it's yeah still i like number two anybody else thoughts recommendation two

Sure, I'll make a motion then to well, actually we public hearing public hearing.

Yes, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to speak on this issue, please. Yay, Paul.

I would like to just introduce myself, Paul Gonzalez, General Counsel for the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. My comment on this particular question is that. Good luck to the committee. I can't comment on that. I just wanted to introduce myself. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Nice to meet you. Thank you, Paul.

Motion to close public hearings? Got a first for Mr. Pena. Second. Second for Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries, and the public hearing is closed. Any motions?

Sure. I'll make a motion. to recommend recommendation number two, which is the City Commission shall provide by ordinance campaign finance restrictions that comply with federal and state law.

I've got a first from Mr. Mendez.

Second.

Second from, I'll give it to Mr. Cárdenas. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. So we're up to public hearing one.

Letter C, disciplinary provision for City Commission members.

So this one again, it only currently reads or currently talks about recall elections, but it doesn't have any other language regarding any kind of disciplinary provisions for city commissioners. So essentially the way to look at it is number one, do you want to include any disciplinary provisions? for the city commissioners to have to receive if they do certain things or if certain things occur. So one, if you even want it, and then two, what that looks like, if you do want it. Right now, like I said, there's no language. These were some of the recommendations that we had presented. I don't know if y'all want me to read them out loud or not.

Because right now there's only, there's two mechanisms for removal, right? The first one would be through a recall. Correct. And then the second, is there some mechanism for removal in the ethics ordinance chapter 38?

I don't believe so.

I know that there's some penalty provisions, but I don't know whether it rises to removal. I don't know the answer to that. I don't recall. Let me check. But in other words, there's already a mechanism in there. So I don't know.

know we discussed this last time as far as what the requirements would be and whether it could be weaponized or not i i don't see the purpose if there's already another mechanism that requires a public vote which is recall but that's just my thoughts and just as a reminder the ethics commission is currently in the process of amending the ethics ordinance uh i'm sorry making recommend discussing recommendations that they want to present to the city commission for the city commission to possibly approve any kind of amendments to it. So that is something that could be recommended to the Commission to have the ethics ordinance changed for removal. So right now, Chapter 38 says that removal or suspension from office, removal from office or suspension from office may be recommended when the Ethics Advisory Commission finds that a serious or repeated violation of this chapter was committed intentionally or through culpable disregard of this chapter. The Ethics Advisory Commission may include the length of any suspension in its recommendation. So that would be for, you know, for a suspension. or for the removal. But it doesn't specify what type of... It just says if there's a serious or repeated violation of this chapter. That's not specifically defined in the ethics code.

So it's very vague. What is the chapter? What is a violation of the chapter? It just talks about ethical things, right? A violation of the chapter could be... Oh, man. It could be all kinds of things. So if you get... accused of a crime or indicted or convicted it would fall in there correct and i don't think we need anything else either correct is that is the ethics commission in the charter like that it exists i think just the creation of it um i'm not 100 sure if it's in the charter

If it is, it's just a general creation of it. The ethics ordinance itself is what specifies what the commission is entitled to do, has jurisdiction of, and what they cannot do.

Does it have to be adopted every year, the actual ordinances that they recommend?

no so the ethics commit the ethics ordinance was adopted several years ago i'm not exactly sure when um and that's why we're in the process of amending it but it's it stays in place until the city commission decides to repeal it or to amend it uh but it's it's there until they decide to do anything with it it doesn't need constant uh updating or revision if the commission doesn't touch it but if the commission said okay we want to get

rid of that ordinance or not yeah i guess get rid of it technically they could technically so if you so if we codify or ask them to include something in the charter that said you must have a mechanism for suspending and removing or is that too much like because it exists but it could go away it also exists in the recall election i think it's fine though it isn't

The problem with the recall is I think it's 10% of the registered voter base, which is a very high bar that it's hard to achieve. So if you get a situation where the act is very egregious and very hard to get that many voters to vote at one time, much less the signatures in a recall.

Then you can run for president.

If whatever they do is so egregious, you should be able to get 10 i mean i think when you try and like make it too like make too complicated of a process it's it can be weaponized as we discussed at the last meeting or it can just be like you're going too far you're micromanaging like let the public decide let somebody resign let there be 10 or through the ethics commission i mean the people accountable they get i mean the commission gets they're up for election every four years so it's not like they stay there forever

I agree with that. I mean, 10% is a lot, but I think it's relative for us because we usually see less than that coming out to vote.

Oh, it's 10% of total registered votes.

So let's take an example where a commissioner decides not to attend any of the commission meetings anymore, right? At some point, you got to deem that as an abandonment of your position, right? And so what is that number? And what is the mechanism to get them off once, say, six months worth of meetings were missed or, you know, were or six straight meetings or 10 straight meetings, right? And so it's gonna be very difficult to, for lack of a better word, quote unquote, impeach someone with 10% of the votes.

There's vacancy,

removal provisions but it's like on committees boards and committees it's not for pub the charter says for pub that if you miss is it 120 days consecutive uh meetings over a period of 120 days you basically vacate your seat at least that's how it was used to be paul's probably never had to deal with that um but you it would also i mean if if we have if some of us think that maybe

should consider something then maybe the most prudent approach is to get or to have the city attorney's office provide us with the mechanisms in place for our next meeting in other words right now this is what's in place to remove and then we can maybe decide based on whether we think that's good enough or whether we need to consider something else yeah because there's there's a whole array of things that someone can do that would cause

know that would merit some consideration with respect to removing that person other than a recall vote which is a very high bar and so what what are those those items and maybe we can codify them into the charter so that you can invoke them when you need to if you need to right well so that would not be in the ethics right the not attending a meeting for six months

That's not anywhere in the language of the ethics.

That's what I'm looking for. Cause I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I don't see it right now that I'm looking in the charter.

The ethics definitely includes a provision for criminal acts. I don't know what the definition is and I don't know whether it's, it requires a conviction or not. Cause you know that that process can take a while to, and somebody is entitled. I mean, if they're arrested for something, they're entitled to try and prove their innocence regardless. Um,

What if we, like, make a list of the things that we think are important and make a recommendation that that be somehow required to be in the, like, set out by the, what is it, the ethics committee? Like, if you're concerned about attendance, criminal acts seems like a big one. And then just, like, the ethical things. What are any other big reasons you think someone should be subject to removal? We've seen moral turpitude. Is that in there? Pretty sure it is. It's kind of along the lines of ethical things, right? It does set out the ethical standards. Same how lawyers have their ethics rules. I'm sure accountants have their ethics rules. I think if we just let the lawyers do the writing, but I think if we just make an outline of what we think are things of concern. Like you brought up right now, Ben, the not appearing, not attending meetings. I think that's an important one. But if you kind of just outline what you think is something that should make somebody subject to removal from the commission, maybe we can recommend that those be considered to be codified in the ethics portion or the ethics committee make rules for that. Like make a procedure for that. Does that make sense? Is that how it works?

Yeah, I think we also need to just know, like, what, what exists right now, like, what is required by recall. What acts if any, and then what's in ethics, which acts and what the requirement would be. I mean, if that's good enough, then maybe we don't have to do anything, but if. We're not satisfied that that works, then we can take action.

I agree with that. I just think that, like, is there anything else while we're discussing so we could discuss it at the next meeting? Like, think of things that you think are important enough to be in if they're not already in. You know what I mean? So we can just get to the point and say, like, these are things we think are important as a group. We recommend that they be addressed and that there be a method for removal if one of these things occurs. And let the Ethics Commission determine how to do it.

So would it What about failure to pay property tax or P.U.B. bills, something like that? It might be someone's reality, but it's hard to come by. So should it be worthy of having to give up your position? That's a good question. Depends on the circumstances.

You have to be current on your property taxes.

But then how do you practically put that into effect, right? Like, oh, you're not current, you're off, you're current, you're back on, or you're just off, and now we have to have another election because somebody paid late?

And would it apply to entities? Like, if you own entities and you have other partners and maybe a partner mismanages something and doesn't pay taxes, maybe individually, sure.

Almost pay taxes. Their opponent can bring that up.

A motion to table.

Do we want to just open the public hearing for this one?

Oh, yes. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to speak on the matter, please dump it up. But I don't see anyone wanting to stand up. So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. I've got a first from Mr. Pena. Second. Second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. So now your motion to table, Mr. Pena.

Yes, I motion to table item 1C, disciplinary provisions.

Any seconds? Second. Second from Ms. Elizondo. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. The item is tabled. Future agenda items.

So if you all would like at the next meeting, we can bring this one back and we can discuss it a little bit more. And if there's anything additional that y'all would like for us to put on the agenda, just let us know so that way we can put that on. And even if there's something that you think of, you could always email us before we post the agenda to let us know, hey, you know what? I think about this. Let's add that. We could consider adding that as well.

I know that Will mentioned some at the last meeting where he went and listed several. It would be helpful to see what other cities are doing as well, what they've adopted, and maybe we can follow suit on what we feel is right or wrong.

Regarding the disciplinary provision? Okay.

The items that would be disciplined.

Definitely.

Software discipline or removal.

Be just a few that are well run or big cities. Trying to make it a manageable project for you all because we also want to know what currently exists.

We could do that. We could just get a handful and present to you all what other cities have and what they're doing, and that way you all can just take it into consideration. As far as the next meeting date, I don't know if we want to. We don't have one scheduled on the books yet. That's something that we should probably maybe get some information from you all on availability right now. And if we're going to do it at the library, then I don't know.

miss myra i'm pretty sure the library will be available right on whatever date they decide right now it's early voting the main branch is utilizing uh for early voting june 1st to the 13th the 13th two weeks well it's it's only june 13th so if if it's after that then it will be available right now the main branch or both libraries are utilizing the facilities for early voting and election day currently.

Yeah, early voting ends on the 9th, so 10th, 11th, and 12th would be available, I guess.

This is just, should we put this on the City Commission's agenda for June 16th, just to see, like, give a preliminary, and maybe it's just me since currently I'm the chair, I'll just tell them, like, These are the things we've discussed. These are the issues we've been thinking of proposing. And then the discussion becomes, do we put it on the November ballot or May of next year? And then given their response, then we know if we really need to step it up and try to get the other two.

Then we would need it. OK, so then that would be June 17th, you said? When is the next meeting? I'm sorry. June 16th. June 16th. Then we would need to have two meetings. I mean, then I would suggest just having a meeting on the books so that we can at least have an agenda posted maybe for that week, maybe like that 17th, 18th, or 19th. And that way we at least have one ready to go for that week. And then if we need to have one, we're going to be gone. I don't know how we can do it I guess I guess we can we can do that and we'll figure it out I'll talk to Will and we'll figure it out and if we need to reconvene between him and I to figure out dates we can we can do that and if there needs to be yeah we'll figure it out we can do that as of now we've gotten through everything with the exception of the last one I believe so

We're required to have two more meetings. Is that what you said?

That's the issue. We're required to have two more meetings.

Is that a requirement by law or is that just something the commission?

That was required by the ordinance by the commission. Correct.

Okay.

All right. But then, so depending on what the, if it's presented on June 16th, then do you still need your July 7th hearing with the city commission?

The July, let me go back to the slide.

I mean, I guess it would depend on how you all would want to officially present your recommendations to the committee. I guess it doesn't need to be very, you know, elaborate and it could be kind of a quick thing. I'm not sure how it's been done in the past because I haven't been here.

Well, because at this point we just, we came out with solid decisions about the salary increase and the campaign finance.

The only thing pending is the disciplinary provision on whether you're going to recommend that or not. The only issue is that by ordinance, you all need to have two more hearings. But I mean, I guess that's why if we could get one on the books, uh, We need the meeting. I mean, if we could get, if we could get one for next week, I would feel better if we could get one for next week and then you can have it on the agenda for the set for the 16th. Yeah. And then tentatively, if we need to have one that 17th, 18th, 19th, or even the 22nd. Okay. Yeah. And then, you know, maybe do it that way. Sure. If, if we are all available. um well we were too late to post for the eighth or or how when when's the soonest we could have the next meeting miss maya the eighth you can post we can post by tomorrow okay then we could do the eighth for the next meeting and then where would it be that just depends i don't know where it would be okay did you not want to do the public library We would have to check the...

It's not going to be available because there's early voting.

Yeah, in that room, unless we moved to a different part of the library, or we did the southmost library, or the southmost one.

Unless there's another availability and within the... And we could do the convention center just to do it. It's not like we only have one... But although the... Upstairs, the conference room?

But then do they open? Sorry? Okay.

How about PUB?

The B Metro facility?

Do you volunteer?

Sure.

Madam Chair, unfortunately, both the boardrooms are under construction right now. So this is in the June timeframe. I'm afraid it's probably not going to be available because it's not even available to the PUB board.

Where's the PB board having its meetings?

Right now it's moved to the old admin building boardroom, but that's about to be the changes to the main boardroom building are going to affect the admin board building. So it might go to the service center conference room at some point.

I just can't say. Projects.

Or what we could do is if we're going to post tomorrow, by tomorrow we will know if the event center is available. And as long as it's available, we'll do it there. And if it's not, we'll figure something else out and we'll post it at another location, wherever that location is available.

We'll know by tomorrow. For the alternative, do you all want me to look into B-Metro, the conference room upstairs?

Or maybe one of the rec centers, like Tony Gonzalez. Because if it's later in the day, I don't. Well, they might have, this is after schools or some summer camps going on. Trying to think of city properties.

We could do it at GBIC too. Oh, yeah?

Yeah. But then does someone have to be available after hours to unlock it?

I have the key. ACIC, right?

to be decided but um there's different options that are if i may uh i'm happy to check to see what progress is being made and if it could be available it sounded like the two other locations in the ordinance was a requirement to try to get more public input so it's you know it's a question i'd offer even the fm 511 or the service center conference room but that's not very accessible to most

Well, but it's next Monday, so your PUB meeting is next Monday.

Right. For next Monday, it's out. We've got a conflict. But I thought you were talking about a second, like on the 22nd or that end of the week of the 16th.

Possibly.

Convention Center.

But we could decide that at the next meeting. No, we need a place for Monday. So, yeah, no, PUB's out. Thank you, though. We appreciate the opportunity.

We'll find, there's enough city facilities. There's enough options. I think we will be able to figure something out. As long as we know that you all want to meet on Monday, June 8th, then we can make it work.

Yeah, sure. 5 p.m.? 5 p.m. And then if we can maybe start to prepare slides to present to the City Commission at their meeting on June 16th. And anyone is welcome, or if you've got better things to do, i'll happily convey it to them because i've got to be there but yeah okay so motion to return from mr pena Did you start it? Sorry.

Yeah, he made a motion. I'll second.

Okay. And Mr. Mendez just seconded it. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries and we stand adjourned.

I turn at 6.24 p.m. Thank you.